SDN World 3 Rules Discussion Thread

[Steve]

That's what I figured, but some people want support troop figures quantified.

[Akhlut]

So, just for simplicity's sake, are we having 15,000 men for every division and 5,000 of them are logistics-devoted noncombatants? I'd like to know this so I can put up my Orbat.

[Minister of Pigeonry]

I'm not exactly knowledgeable on the subject of Combat to Support troop breakdowns, but why don't we just assume that each Division/Brigade has its own self contained percentage or number of support troops. If you're building new units then you just assume the same. There might even be a way to draw a standard number or percent for each so for those who wanted to count support troops they just extract the number.

[Steve]

That's what we're figuring, but the debate is how many support troops there'd be. I've heard numbers of 33%, 40%, and even 66% of a unit should be support. Which means a division of base 15,000 would have either 5,000, 6,000, or 10,000 of its numbers as support troops, not actual combatants.

[Minister of Pigeonry]

That's what we're figuring, but the debate is how many support troops there'd be. I've heard numbers of 33%, 40%, and even 66% of a unit should be support. Which means a division of base 15,000 would have either 5,000, 6,000, or 10,000 of its numbers as support troops, not actual combatants.

Ahh, I see now. Well, shoot, I'd be in favor of 25%-30% I suppose, though limited expertise on the subject so, I'll go with whatever folks decide is reasonable and close to historically accurate figures.

[Norseman]

I think the reason that the whole "It costs 25000 men to get a 15000 man division" idea came up was that much of logistics support *isn't* organic to the individual divisions, but that that it's rather part of the armies of the corps instead.

[K. A. Pital]

You could simply calculate the ordinary support troop figures for an Army/Corps, then divide by number of divisions in a corps, and voila, derive your percentage per division. In essense, regardless of at which level support troops are created, they can be calculated and it can be done in a fashion that would minimize number crunching.

[Norseman]

You could simply calculate the ordinary support troop figures for an Army/Corps, then divide by number of divisions in a corps, and voila, derive your percentage per division. In essense, regardless of at which level support troops are created, they can be calculated and it can be done in a fashion that would minimize number crunching.

Yes but... for my 2.36 million mobilisation force I am counting on being able to mobilise 102 divisions, dividing by 25 000, no doubt there are also additional support elements within each division. Basically though 3 million should be enough to raise a 200 division army if you only count 15 000 man divisions, no one actually did so due to the need for support elements. Personally I'm just going to assume that roughly 20%-25% of each division is support elements, and that everything else is handled by units outside of divisional command proper. That is why I like the idea of demanding a manpower toll of 25 000 for each new division you raise, at least initially.

[Siege]

Will your common sense deduct the necessarry numbers from your mobilization pool and available troop reserves? Every man spent doing these tasks is one who can't be in a front line infantry unit. Simply put I think if there is no mechanism (and Noreseman's is fine by me in principal) to deduct manpower then folks will take their multi million person mobilization pools and in wartime claim them all as combat troops.

So what? If everybody does this the worst that could happen is that our armies will be larger than they realistically ought to be. Why is this a problem? Last time I checked SDN World games weren't aiming for 100 percent realism. So I might be able to mobilize a slightly larger army, and everybody I might decide to march against will be able to do the same. It balances itself out: the problem solves itself. And if people really find some way to powergame the system, there's Steve to tell them off. I'm not at Sandhurst or West Point; I don't want to model every last detail of my armed forces. Or else before long we'll find ourselves quantifying how much motor oil our mechanized formations use on a daily basis.

I'm in favor of assuming that the 15,000 number is the actual fighting contingent of the division, and the support arm is simply invisible. This way it doesn't matter one bit how many of them there ought to be, since they do not come into the equation. It's simple and elegant, and it doesn't require any more pointless calculations.

[Norseman]

But what if some use the higher number and some the lower? Those who try for realism would then be at a disadvantage.

[Ryan Thunder]

Why don't we assume that its included in the 15,000 and if/when combat occurs simply specify how many divisions are involved?

[K. A. Pital]

But what if some use the higher number and some the lower?

Those whose number is inconsistent with embedded support (too many divisions per pool) can then be assumed, with mod blessing, to be operating without support. With the entailing logistical failure and collapse of their army onto itself, crumbling of the front and utterly devastating consequences. Dum. Solved the issue?

[Steve]

Siege and Ryan have the best ideas and I'm frankly rolling with that. It'd be more realistic to painstakingly count proper support personnel from one's reserve forces, but that just means we'll be doing heavy number-crunching. Might be better if the player just accepts that 40% of his mobilized forces will be support forces or something, but I'd rather keep it abstract and if someone goes too far I break out Modnir and go all up on his noggin.

[Thanas]

Hmmm. I have dedicated 25% of my brigades to logistics. How do I deal with them now? Turn them into combat brigades? Or keep the setup as it is?

[Siege]

But what if some use the higher number and some the lower? Those who try for realism would then be at a disadvantage.

The same can be said about statistics relating to the usage of motor oil by mechanized formations. Those who don't quantify this will have an advantage over those who do! Except of course that nobody in their right mind will want to calculate any such thing, which brings us to my point, which is: for heavens sake can we stop screwing around with the ceaseless quantifications?!

At some point you'll just have to get used to the fact that this isn't War Simulator 1925, we're not going to write down every last detail down to the most pointless minutiae, and I'm not a goddamn quartermaster! This is a silly discussion and frankly I can't believe we're having it. I'm trying to have a bit of fun playing an RPG on the Internet in my spare time, I am utterly unwilling to sacrifice any more of that time at this Altar of Realism people are constructing because it leeches the fun out of things, and if you nevertheless want to turn this game into accountancy I'll just as soon revert to the position I expressed much earlier: I'm not going to perform any calculations I don't feel like performing, and you can't make me.

Those whose number is inconsistent with embedded support (too many divisions per pool) can then be assumed, with mod blessing, to be operating without support. With the entailing logistical failure and collapse of their army onto itself, crumbling of the front and utterly devastating consequences. Dum. Solved the issue?

No you haven't solved the issue, you have in fact ignored my entire suggestion and gone right back to the position where we are all forced to calculate how many support troops we need in order to not have our fronts collapse catastrophically due to a lack of munitions, food, water and motor oil. That's not a solution, that's sticking your head in the sand.

[Steve]

Hmmm. I have dedicated 25% of my brigades to logistics. How do I deal with them now? Turn them into combat brigades? Or keep the setup as it is?

Keep it as-is. I'm starting to agree with Siege, though I ask that if people mobilize you keep an eye on how much of your mobilization pool is open. Really I'll just swing Modnir down on anyone who's clearly going too far.

And oops, almost edited your post on accident by clicking "Edit" instead of "Quote".

[CmdrWilkens]

Steve,

We could try this:

Since we are costing things out on the Brigade/Division level:
- A Brigade is 5,000 troops

- For Infantry you get 4,000 troops and 1,000 support
- For specialized (Engineer/Pioneer/Mountain/etc) you get 3,500 troops and 1,500 support
- For mechanized/motorized you get 3,000 troops and 2,000 support.


Folks can keep all of their existing counts of brigades and divisions but when they fight with them is the only time they'd have to figure the matter of who dies and how much that impacts guys with rifles (or sitting in tanks) and how much it impacts guys hauling the ammo around.


I think it'd be pretty simple to implement but meh either way.

[Steve]

What I may do, Wilkens, is use your suggestion as a basis to see if people are abusing not having to count support troops. IOW, me and Rogue and whatever other poor dumb bastard joins us as third co-mod will see what proportion of one's engaged forces should be support and which should be combatants and judge accordingly.

[Beowulf]

What I may do, Wilkens, is use your suggestion as a basis to see if people are abusing not having to count support troops. IOW, me and Rogue and whatever other poor dumb bastard joins us as third co-mod will see what proportion of one's engaged forces should be support and which should be combatants and judge accordingly.

You really want a third co-mod? *sigh* I should know better than to volunteer.

[Steve]

Well, Rogue's not exactly always active, three mods mean work is spread around and I can, y'know, actually get my stuff done.....

Granted, since we have one MESS player as a mod it might be better if a non-MESS player (hand down Shep!) steps forward, even if we have no MESS in this game. Ma Deuce has impressed me, for instance. I know Slacker has mod experience. Stas. Fin. Shady. Or Siege. Just some names off the top of my head.

[TimothyC]

I offered a while back.

I'm offering again.

[Steve]

Well, if there are no objections, Timothy and Rogue shall be my co-mods.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Steve, do population points follow a population range, or do they follow strictly as they are?

[Steve]

Hrm. A range would work. Initially I'd thought of it being a cap but I think a couple people drew their numbers in anticipation of it being the threshold as in territory/area so we'll go with that. Assume a 3 gives you 75-100M I guess, though I'd prefer if you kept it no higher than 85M.

Actually, I'd like it if nobody gets within 10M of the next population mark. For instance, my 4 in population (2+2) would be kept in 100-115M range, not 100-125M.

And our new co-mod gave me a good solution to my "abuse vs. original" dilemma over counting tonnage of incomplete warships (since I have an interest myself in the matter). If the warship is within a year of commissioning, then count half the tonnage. If it's not, it only counts against your construction tonnage capacity limit or takes up a slip if a capital ship.

IOW, if you laid down a dreadnought in, say, late 1923 or 1924, it will not count against your fleet tonnage limit, but it will take up a slip. If you laid it down in earlier 1923 or even late 1922 and will thus have it fitting out and fit to be in service by the end of 1925, then count half the Standard tonnage against your fleet tonnage limit.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, I'd like it if nobody gets within 10M of the next population mark. For instance, my 4 in population (2+2) would be kept in 100-115M range, not 100-125M.

I put a 147 million population for realism purposes only and did all military calculations (mobilization) with 125 million as the hard upper limit.